The Effect of Determining Pair Programming Groups According to Various Individual Difference Variables on Group Compatibility,Flow,and Coding Performance
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2021
The Effect of Determining Pair Programming Groups According to Various Individual Difference Variables on Group Compatibility,Flow,and Coding Performance
This study's goal was to investigate the effect of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairs in terms of individual differences on group compatibility, flow, and coding performance in pair programming. In line with this goal, five individual difference variables of gender, learning style, friendship, the conscientiousness component of personality traits, and prior knowledge of coding were determined in order to use them in the determination of pairs in pair programming. In the quantitative section of this mixed study, a non-equivalent control group posttest only experimental design was utilized. Sixty-four volunteer university students were included in the study. As a result of the study, it was determined that the homogeneous group experienced a higher level of flow in the case of learning style. On the other hand, in the case of friendship, the homogeneous group experienced a higher level of flow, while the heterogeneous group demonstrated a higher level of coding performance. Concerning the conscientiousness component of personality traits, the heterogeneous group showed a higher level of coding performance. In line with these findings, suggestions for both researchers and practitioners of coding education were made in the full text.
AggarwalP.O’BrienC. L. (2008).
Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education,
30(3), 255–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308322283
2.
AkgünE.NuhoğluP.TüzünH.KayaG.ÇınarM. (2011).
Development of an educational game design model. Educational Technology Theory and Practice,
1(1), 41–61.
3.
AlsancakD. (2010). Bilgisayar destekli işbirlikli öğrenme ortamlarında geçişken bellek ile grup uyumu, grup atmosferi ve performans arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi [The investigation of the relationship between transactive memory with group cohesion, group atmosphere and performance in computer supported collaboration learning environments] [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Graduate School of Educational Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
4.
AşçıF. H.ÇağlarE.EklundR. C.AltıntaşA.JacksonS. (2007).
The adaptation study of dispositional flow scale-2 and flow state scale-2. Hacettepe Journal of Sport Sciences,
18(4), 182–196.
5.
Belshee, A. (2005, August). Promiscuous pairing and beginner’s mind: Embrace inexperience. [Presentation]. Agile Development Conference (ADC 2005). https://doi.org/10.1109/ADC.2005.37
6.
Bevan, J., Werner, L., & McDowell, C. (2002). Guidelines for the use of pair programming in a freshman programming class [Presentation]. 15th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEET 2002), Covington, KY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSEE.2002.995202
7.
BradleyJ. H.HebertF. J. (1997).
The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of Management Development,
16(5), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621719710174525
8.
BurgerJ. M. (2006). Personality (Kişilik) (Trans.: İ. Deniz, & E. Sarıoğlu) (1st ed).
Kaktüs Press.
9.
CampeS.DennerJ.GreenE.TorresD. (2020).
Pair programming in middle school: Variations in interactions and behaviors. Computer Science Education,
30(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1648119
10.
Chao, J., & Atli, G. (2006, 23-28 July). Critical personality traits in successful pair programming [Presentation]. AGILE 2006, Minneapolis, MN, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/AGILE.2006.20
11.
ChaparroE. A.YukselA.RomeroP.BryantS. (2005). Factors affecting the perceived effectiveness of pair programming in higher education. In RomeroP.GoodJ.Acosta ChaparroE.BryantS. (Eds.), In Proceeding of 17th workshop of the psychology of programming interest group (pp. 5–18).
Sussex University.
12.
ChlupD. T.CollinsT. E. (2010).
Breaking the ice: Using ice-breakers and Re-energizers with adult learners. Adult Learning,
21(3–4), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/104515951002100305
13.
ChoiK. S. (2015).
A comparative analysis of different gender pair combinations in pair programming. Behaviour & Information Technology,
34(8), 825–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2014.937460
14.
CreswellJ. W.Plano-ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Sage Press.
15.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety.
Jossey-Bass Press.
16.
DemirÖSeferoğluS. S. (2019).
Developing a Scratch-based coding achievement test. Information and Learning Sciences,
120(5/6), 383–406. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-08-2018-0078
17.
DionK. L. (2000).
Group cohesion: From “field of forces” to multidimensional construct. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice,
4, 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.7
18.
ForsythD. R. (2006). Group dynamics (4th ed.).
Thomson Wadsworth Press.
19.
FraenkelJ. R.WallenN. E.HyunH. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.).
McGraw-Hill Press.
20.
Gencelİ. E. (2007).
Kolb'un deneyimsel öğrenme kuramına dayalı öğrenme stilleri envanteri-III'ü Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması [Adaptation of Kolb's learning styles inventory to Turkish based on experiential learning theory-III]. Dokuz Eylul University Journal of Graduate School of Social Sciences,
9(2), 120–139.
GoodmanP. S.DevadasR.HughsonT. L. G. (1988). Groups and productivity: Analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams. In CampbellJ. P.CampbellR. J., & Associates (Eds.), Productivity in organizations (pp. 295–327).
Jossey-Bass Press.
23.
GrissomR. J.KimJ. J. (2012). Effect sizes for research: Univariate and multivariate applications.
Routledge Press.
24.
HanksB.FitzgeraldS.McCauleyR.MurphyL.ZanderC. (2011).
Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education,
21(2), 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.579808
25.
HannayJ. E.ArisholmE.EngvikH.SjobergD. I. (2010).
Effects of personality on pair programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering,
36(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2009.41
26.
HartlA. C.DeLayD.LaursenB.DennerJ.WernerL.CampeS.OrtizE. (2015).
Dyadic instruction for middle school students: Liking promotes learning.Learning and Individual Differences,
44, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.11.002
27.
HelmondP.OverbeekG.BrugmanD.GibbsJ. C. (2014).
A meta-analysis on cognitive distortions and externalizing problem behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
42(3), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814552842
JacksonS. A. (1995).
Factors influencing the occurrence of flow state in elite athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
7, 138–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413209508406962
30.
JacksonS. A.EklundR. C. (2002).
Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
24(2), 133–150. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.24.2.133
31.
JacobsonN.SchaeferS. K. (2008).
Pair programming in CS1: Overcoming objections to its adoption. SIGCSE Bulletin,
40, 93–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/1383602.1383643
32.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1999). Learning together and alone (5th ed.).
Allyn & Bacon Press.
33.
Jones, D. L., & Fleming, S. D. (2013, September 15-19). What use is a backseat driver? A qualitative investigation of pair programming [Presentation]. 2013 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human Centric Computing, San Jose, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/VLHCC.2013.6645252
34.
KlimstraT. A. (2012).
The dynamics of personality and identity in adolescence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology,
9, 472–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.673266
35.
KolbD. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experiences as the source of learning and development.
Prentice-Hall Press.
36.
KolbD. A. (1999). The Kolb learning style inventory.
Hay House Press.
37.
KroegerO.ThuesenJ. M. (1992). Type talk at work.
Delacorte Press.
38.
Lambropoulos, N, & Mystakidis, S. (2012, September 9-12). Learning experience + within 3D immersive worlds [Presentation]. 2012 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS 2012), Wroclaw, Poland. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6354452
39.
LandhaußerA.KellerJ. (2012). Flow and its affective, cognitive, and performance-related consequences. In EngeserS.(Ed.), Advances in flow research (pp. 65–85).
Springer Press.
40.
LataneB.WilliamsK.HarkinsS. (1979).
Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
37(6), 822–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822
41.
LiddellW. W.SlocumJ. W.Jr. (1976).
The effects of individual-role compatibility upon group performance: An extension of Schutz’s FIRO theory. Academy of Management Journal,
19(3), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.5465/255607
42.
MacDonaldA. R.MiellD.MitchellL. (2002).
An investigation of children’s musical collaborations: The effect of friendship and age. Psychology of Music,
30(2), 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735602302002
43.
ManD. C.LamS. K. (2003).
The effects of job complexity and autonomy on cohesiveness in collectivistic and individualistic work groups: A cross-cultural analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
24(8), 979–1001. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.227
44.
Melnik, G., & Maurer, F. (2002). Perceptions of agile practices: A student survey. In D. Wells, & L. Williams (Eds.), Extreme Programming and Agile Methods – XP/Agile Universe 2002 [pp. 241–250]. Springer Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45672-4_27
45.
MetherM. (2003).
The history of the central limit theorem. Sovelletun Matematiikan Erikoistyöt,
2(1), 1–23.
46.
MohammedS.AngellL. C. (2003).
Personality heterogeneity in teams: Which differences make a difference for team performance?Small Group Research,
34, 651–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496403257228
47.
Moreno-Leon, J., Roman-Gonzalez, M., Harteveld, C., & Robles, G. (2017, May 6-11). On the automatic assessment of computational thinking skills: A comparison with human Experts [Presentation]. 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, Colorado, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3027063.3053216
48.
MorsünbülÜ. (2014).
The validity and reliability study of the Turkish version of Quick Big Five Personality Test. The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences,
27(4), 316–322. https://doi.org/10.5350/DAJPN2014270405
NagappanN.WilliamsL.WiebeE.MillerC.BalikS.FerzliM., et al. (2003). Pair learning: With an eye toward future success. Lecture Notes in Computer Science: No. 2753. Extreme Programming and Agile Methods - XP/Agile Universe 2003 (pp. 185–198). Springer Press.
51.
NathanM. J.KoedingerK. R. (2000).
An investigation of teachers’ beliefs of students’ algebra development. Cognition and Instruction,
18(2), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1802_03
52.
NeumanG. A.WrightJ. (1999).
Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability.Journal of Applied Psychology,
84(3), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.376
53.
PattonM. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2nd ed.).
Sage Press.
54.
PelsF.KleinertJ.MennigenF. (2018).
Group flow: A scoping review of definitions, theoretical approaches, measures and findings. PLoS One,
13(12), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210117
55.
PlonkaL.SharpH.Van der LindenJ.DittrichY. (2015).
Knowledge transfer in pair programming: An in-depth analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies,
73, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2014.09.001
56.
Poonam, R., & Yasser, C. M. (2018, 26-28 April). An experimental study to investigate personality traits on pair programming efficiency in extreme programming [Presentation]. 5th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA 2018), Singapore, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1109/IEA.2018.8387077
57.
PriceJ. L.MuellerC. W. (1986). Handbook of organizational measurement.
Pitman Press.
58.
RogersE. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations.
Free Press.
59.
RumseyD. J. (2016). Statistics for dummies (2nd ed.).
Wiley Press.
60.
Salleh, N. (2008, April). A systematic review of pair programming research-initial results [Presentation]. New Zealand Computer Science Research Student Conference (NZCSRSC 2008), Christchurch, New Zealand.
61.
Salleh, N., Mendes, E., & Grundy, J. (2011). Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37(4), 509-525. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSE.2010.59.
62.
Sennett, J., & Sherriff, M. (2010, March 10-13). Compatibility of partnered students in computer science education [Presentation]. 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2010), Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1734263.1734347
63.
SfetsosP.AdamidisP.AngelisL.StamelosI.DeligiannisI. (2012). Investigating the impact of personality and temperament traits on pair programming: A controlled experiment replication. In 2012 eighth international conference on the quality of information and communications technology (pp. 57–65). IEEE Computer Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/QUATIC.2012.36
64.
SteinerI. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity.
Academic Press.
65.
StephensM.RosenbergD. (2003). Extreme programming refactored: The case against XP.
A Press.
66.
SunW.Aguirre-UrretaM.NamH. S. (2019).
Search and research on economics of pair programming. Journal of Computer Information Systems,
59(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2016.1263167
Thomas, L., Ratcliffe, M., & Robertson, A. (2003, February 19-23). Code warriors and code-a-phobes: A study in attitude and pair programming [Presentation]. 34th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education of the Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2003), Reno, Nevada, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/792548.612007
69.
VermulstA. A.GerrisJ. R. M. (2005). QBF: Quick Big Five Personality Test manual.
LDC Press.
70.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
71.
WalkerC. J. (2010).
Experiencing flow. Is doing it together better than doing it alone. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
5, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760903271116
72.
WeinbergR. S.GouldD. (2011). Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (6th ed.).
Human Kinetic Press.
73.
Werner, L., Denner, J., Campe, S., Ortiz, E., DeLay, D., Hartl, A. C., & Laursen, B. (2013, March 6-9). Pair programming for middle school students: Does friendship influence academic outcomes? [Presentation]. 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education of the Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE 2013), Denver, Colorado, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445322
74.
Werner, L. L., Campe, S., & Denner, J. (2005, October 22-25). Middle school girls + Games programming = Information technology fluency [Presentation]. SIGITE 2005, Newark, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/1095714.1095784
Williams, L., Layman, L., Osborne, J., & Katira, N. (2006, July 23-28). Examining the compatibility of student pair programmers [Presentation]. AGILE 2006, Minneapolis, MN, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/AGILE.2006.25
77.
Williams, L., McCrickard, S. D., Layman, L., & Hussein, K. (2008, August 4-8). Eleven guidelines for implementing pair programming in the classroom [Presentation]. Agile 2008, Toronto, ON, Canada. https://doi.org/10.1109/Agile.2008.12
78.
YalomI. D.LeszczM. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy (5th ed.).
Basic Books Press.
79.
ZhongB.WangQ.ChenJ. (2016).
The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior,
64, 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.07.017
80.
ZierisF.PrecheltL. (2019). Does pair programming pay off? In SadowskiC.ZimmermannT. (Eds.), Rethinking productivity in software engineering (pp. 251–259).
A Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-4221-6
